Why did they bother...

[Nerys Myk]

Oh please, even TOS was far from artistic. It was a western set in space.

Since when is the "western" genre not a category of art?

Were there a lot of Russians and Asians and Blacks as featured ensemble characters in Bonanza?

Hop Sing was a semi-regular. It was also known to tackle social issues.

Did Gunsmoke feature an interracial kiss?

Might have. Quint Asper, played by Burt Reynolds was a Native American.

Did the Rifleman offer consistent subversive allegories about U.S. race relations and foreign policy?

I've no idea on that one.

Daniel Boone feature Native Americans (Mingo) and African Americans (Gabe) in its cast.

The High Chaparral featured several Hispanic characters. The Cannon and Montoya families were central to the show.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

So what's wrong with asking for less flaws with the fun?

Well, some of us did that for forty years with oldTrek - to no avail.

The closest thing that the oldTrek movies offered in ten outings to a "sensitive exploration" of any real world issue was...let's see...ah - "Save the whales."

STID accomplished more with regard to addressing current issues in one film than the oldTrek movies managed from 1979 to 2003.

And I am fairly convinced that to a certain group there is no criticism of the new films, no matter how patiently reasoned it may be, which will be tolerated.

Well, that will be tested if and when someone comes up with one that's new and worthwhile.

Until then...pass.

 

[Captain Nebula]

I'm fairly convinced at this point that to a certain group of fans there is simply nothing Abrams can do right, short of leaving the franchise.

And even then you can be sure the same people will be making posts whining about his cruel betrayal because he was never a true fan.

And I am fairly convinced that to a certain group there is no criticism of the new films, no matter how patiently reasoned it may be, which will be tolerated.

And to be honest, it's none of those things.

If I wanted to buy a table, I have a choice. I could buy a wood table hand crafted and made with care with a beautiful finish that could last a century. Or I could buy a metal and plastic table with an artificial veneer that might look just like the wood tabletop, but really isn't. Both tables may last the same amount of time, but you really know that one is better quality than the other.

It doesn't matter who directed the movie. It's just an artificial veneer over something that may be great fun and cool sci-fi, but just really isn't Star Trek.

 

[sj4iy]

Oh please, even TOS was far from artistic. It was a western set in space.

Since when is the "western" genre not a category of art?

Were there a lot of Russians and Asians and Blacks as featured ensemble characters in Bonanza?

Hop Sing was a semi-regular. It was also known to tackle social issues.

Did Gunsmoke feature an interracial kiss?

Might have. Quint Asper, played by Burt Reynolds was a Native American.

Did the Rifleman offer consistent subversive allegories about U.S. race relations and foreign policy?

I've no idea on that one.

Daniel Boone feature Native Americans (Mingo) and African Americans (Gabe) in its cast.

The High Chaparral featured several Hispanic characters. The Cannon and Montoya families were central to the show.

TOS wasn't always so "enlightened". They characterized hippies as too dumb to live. Or where Kirk actually thinks he's a Native American (that was just awful). Or the episode where Kirk and a woman exchange bodies doesn't exactly shine the best light on women in command.

 

[BillJ]

It doesn't matter who directed the movie. It's just an artificial veneer over something that may be great fun and cool sci-fi, but just really isn't Star Trek.

People keep saying it isn't real Trek, but they are unable to define what real Trek is. Much less prove that Abrams Trek isn't "real".

 

[Nerys Myk]

I'm fairly convinced at this point that to a certain group of fans there is simply nothing Abrams can do right, short of leaving the franchise.

And even then you can be sure the same people will be making posts whining about his cruel betrayal because he was never a true fan.

And I am fairly convinced that to a certain group there is no criticism of the new films, no matter how patiently reasoned it may be, which will be tolerated.

And to be honest, it's none of those things.

If I wanted to buy a table, I have a choice. I could buy a wood table hand crafted and made with care with a beautiful finish that could last a century. Or I could buy a metal and plastic table with an artificial veneer that might look just like the wood tabletop, but really isn't. Both tables may last the same amount of time, but you really know that one is better quality than the other.

It doesn't matter who directed the movie. It's just an artificial veneer over something that may be great fun and cool sci-fi, but just really isn't Star Trek.

The "it isn't Star Trek" argument again. It's like flashing back to 2009 again ( also to 1979, 1987 and 2001). So I have to ask, why isn't it Star Trek?

 

[YARN]

TOS wasn't always so "enlightened". They characterized hippies as too dumb to live. Or where Kirk actually thinks he's a Native American (that was just awful). Or the episode where Kirk and a woman exchange bodies doesn't exactly shine the best light on women in command.

OK, I agree. Now what?

 

[Ryan8bit]

People keep saying it isn't real Trek, but they are unable to define what real Trek is.

trek
[trek] verb, trekked, trek·king, noun
verb (used without object)
1.
to travel or migrate, especially slowly or with difficulty.

Well, they don't travel anywhere slowly these days. *rimshot*

Just kidding, I think it's Star Trek. I think what some people just mean to say is, "This is not what I think of when I think of Star Trek," or "it's not the same as the Star Trek that came before."

 

[The Old Mixer]

Did the Rifleman offer consistent subversive allegories about U.S. race relations and foreign policy?

I've no idea on that one.

The Rifleman did a lot of stories about tolerance and open-mindedness to those who were different, some featuring Hispanic characters. Sammy Davis Jr. also guest-starred on a couple of episodes, and I think his race was ignored completely.

 

[YARN]

Well, that will be tested if and when someone comes up with one that's new and worthwhile.

Until then...pass.

It's pretty easy to dismiss all criticism on the grounds that it is not worthwhile or new.

A criticism does not have to be "new" to be valid.

As for whether it is worthwhile, that is a matter for reasoned argument rather than sweeping dismissals.

So, to borrow one of your stock responses, "No."

 

[sj4iy]

TOS wasn't always so "enlightened". They characterized hippies as too dumb to live. Or where Kirk actually thinks he's a Native American (that was just awful). Or the episode where Kirk and a woman exchange bodies doesn't exactly shine the best light on women in command.

OK, I agree. Now what?

What everyone else is saying. What really defines Star Trek? To me, it's how the characters deal with the challenges they face. It's not the size of the screen, the explosions or even the villains. It's what the characters do and how they act.

Do I believe these people playing these iconic characters? Yes.
Can I relate to them? Do I care what happens to them? In this case, yes.
And was it fun to watch? Hell, yes.

 

[YARN]

What everyone else is saying. What really defines Star Trek? To me, it's how the characters deal with the challenges they face. It's not the size of the screen, the explosions or even the villains. It's what the characters do and how they act..

Star Trek is, in part, about the characters. One of my disappointments in the new Trek is that our heroes have been largely reduced to their pop-cultural images. McCoy's role is not simply to crack wise, but to raise important moral questions. That stated, it was nice to see Scotty conscientiously object to Kirk's mission. I think Pegg is growing into his role nicely.

I think the greatest improvement that could be made would be to ground the action in a stronger story. Instead of having a string of action sequences with a revenge-driven villain, it would be nice to see a Trek movie centered on ideas.

The movies have tended to be bigger and dumber than the television shows, in general, but I don't think that has to be the case. I think they can do everything that they are doing well in terms of action, pacing, quips, etc., but add a little more heft.

 

[sj4iy]

What everyone else is saying. What really defines Star Trek? To me, it's how the characters deal with the challenges they face. It's not the size of the screen, the explosions or even the villains. It's what the characters do and how they act..

Star Trek is, in part, about the characters. One of my disappointments in the new Trek is that our heroes have been largely reduced to their pop-cultural images. McCoy's role is not simply to crack wise, but to raise important moral questions. That stated, it was nice to see Scotty conscientiously object to Kirk's mission. I think Pegg is growing into his role nicely.

I think the greatest improvement that could be made would be to ground the action in a stronger story. Instead of having a string of action sequences with a revenge-driven villain, it would be nice to see a Trek movie centered on ideas.

The movies have tended to be bigger and dumber than the television shows, in general, but I don't think that has to be the case. I think they can do everything that they are doing well in terms of action, pacing, quips, etc., but add a little more heft.

Bones had more character-building in the last film, so I think Scotty getting his turn was good to see. I thought the action drove the movie along at a good pace, and the themes of terrorism and the response we can have to threats really echoed what we struggle with in today's society. I don't see how these characters are reduced to "pop-culture" when they are completely different from the characters we knew in all but personality. There's a base, but it has to be built upon.

I thought the story was very strong, because it is Kirk's story- he grows up throughout this film, dealing with demotion, the loss of his father figure, and then becomes so driven by revenge he doesn't listen to others or stop to realize what he's gotten his crew into until it was too late. He knows that he is playing with fire in regards to Khan, but he has no choice.

Sure, Marcus could have been a stronger character, but really he was just the driver of the story...he gets the plot where it needs to be, but stays out of the way for the most part. I really liked what they did with Khan's character. He is manipulative and malicious and much more intelligent than the original Khan was, imo.

I loved the homage scene, and never felt that it was ripped off. I felt that it completed Kirk's character arc, which nothing else would have done- he had to learn sacrifice. It also serves as a catalyst for these two people to become friends for life. It's so different in theme and meaning that it just doesn't feel the same to me.

That's why I liked this movie. I could nitpick it, but I try not to because then I would never enjoy anything.

 

[Captain Nebula]

So I have to ask, why isn't it Star Trek?

For the same reason that much of Enterprise doesn't feel like Star Trek.

The Star Trek 'Mission Statement'

Space: the final frontier. These are the voyages of the starship Enterprise. ...to explore strange new worlds, to seek out new life and new civilizations, and to boldly go where no man has gone before.

How many strange new worlds did nuTrek explore?
How much new life and how many new civilizations?
And did they boldly go... where no one has gone... before?

Star Trek: The Motion Picture tried to seek out new life, but found it was just mutated 'life' from ourselves. And Decker and Ilia created a new life.
Star Trek: The Wrath of Khan created a new world
Star Trek: The Search for Spock... well, they tried to explore a strange new world
Star Trek: The Voyage Home doesn't meet that criteria (and yet, it's one of the most favorite of the fans) - but it did sort of explore the whale civilization and interaction with the Probe but not very well and I guess they boldly went into the past
Star Trek: The Final Frontier may have been a disappointment, but they definitely boldly went where no one human had gone before even if their ship had to be stolen to do it
Star Trek: The Undiscovered Country doesn't meet that mission statement either.

And don't get me started on NextGen movies.

I'm not saying the movies aren't enjoyable...

And at least Star Trek 2009 tried something new. But Star Trek Into Darkness is just a rehash.

 

[Oso Blanco]

Kirk and Spock are bigger than William Shatner and Leonard Nimoy.

That remains to be seen. I think that 20 years from now, people will still remember Shatner and Nimoy in those roles, but I doubt that anyone will give a thought about Pine and Quinto ever being Kirk and Spock. They just won't have the same impact as the original actors did.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Kirk and Spock are bigger than William Shatner and Leonard Nimoy.

That remains to be seen.

It doesn't. The roles have been successfully recast, enabling the studio to make Star Trek more popular in theaters than ever. They will be recast again. You can safely assume that there will be at least one more version of these characters in the next two decades. And since fewer and fewer young people watch TOS, the memory of the characters as they appeared there will continue to dwindle.

Read the topics in this forum - even now you have to explain the origins of Khan to newer fans of the movies because they've never seen "Space Seed."

 

[trevanian]

Star Trek Into Darkness had the balls to take unpopular positions on U.S. actions and all people can do is scream it isn't enough.

Unpopular position?

Everyone supports the troops; fewer and fewer people support the wars. Now that the U.S. has been at war for 12 years and we know that there were no WMDs, it's pretty easy to look back with hindsight and say that preemptive war is not such a good idea. The message would have been courageous in 2002 when everyone in America was spoiling for the fight, not in 2013 when we've already had a belly full.

It doesn't take "balls" to take the stand eleven years too late.

The position taken on U.S. foreign policy in the film is muddled. Admiral Marcus is a renegade military man, so this does not really criticize legitimate foreign policy of the United States. That admirals should not take it upon themselves to start their own wars is a no-brainer even in a post 9-11 world. John Harrison is a terrorist which only plays into the "War on Terror" angle.

Plenty of other films have cashed in on 9-11 iconography (e.g., Cloverfield, War of the Worlds), so this isn't new ground either.

I'm fairly convinced at this point that to a certain group of fans there is simply nothing Abrams can do right, short of leaving the franchise.

And I am fairly convinced that to a certain group there is no criticism of the new films, no matter how patiently reasoned it may be, which will be tolerated.

Yeah, and at least some of that group was also in the 'ENTERPRISE can do no wrong' category over a decade back. Does that indicate a certain level of taste carries over between these two disparate (and to me, inferior) versions of TREK? Or is it they are all either fawning sycophants or paid to gush?

I think at this point I've exhausted my interest in trying to find answers on that topic. I just hope that the next iteration of TREK winds up being a smarter version with respect to this one, akin to the Nolan Batfilms, which will place the Abrams era as Trek's answer to Joel Schumacher's Batman.

 

[Kestra]

As someone who was never into TOS (the series), I have really enjoyed the characters and I'm glad that they went with them. It could have been really limiting but I think they've done a great job creating new stories while sort of tipping their hat to where it all started. It's gotten me interested in the old stories and looking forward to the new.

 

[Tom Servo]

Star Trek Into Darkness had the balls to take unpopular positions on U.S. actions and all people can do is scream it isn't enough.

Unpopular position?

Everyone supports the troops; fewer and fewer people support the wars. Now that the U.S. has been at war for 12 years and we know that there were no WMDs, it's pretty easy to look back with hindsight and say that preemptive war is not such a good idea. The message would have been courageous in 2002 when everyone in America was spoiling for the fight, not in 2013 when we've already had a belly full.

It doesn't take "balls" to take the stand eleven years too late.

The position taken on U.S. foreign policy in the film is muddled. Admiral Marcus is a renegade military man, so this does not really criticize legitimate foreign policy of the United States. That admirals should not take it upon themselves to start their own wars is a no-brainer even in a post 9-11 world. John Harrison is a terrorist which only plays into the "War on Terror" angle.

Plenty of other films have cashed in on 9-11 iconography (e.g., Cloverfield, War of the Worlds), so this isn't new ground either.

I'm fairly convinced at this point that to a certain group of fans there is simply nothing Abrams can do right, short of leaving the franchise.

And I am fairly convinced that to a certain group there is no criticism of the new films, no matter how patiently reasoned it may be, which will be tolerated.

Yeah, and at least some of that group was also in the 'ENTERPRISE can do no wrong' category over a decade back. Does that indicate a certain level of taste carries over between these two disparate (and to me, inferior) versions of TREK? Or is it they are all either fawning sycophants or paid to gush?

I think at this point I've exhausted my interest in trying to find answers on that topic. I just hope that the next iteration of TREK winds up being a smarter version with respect to this one, akin to the Nolan Batfilms, which will place the Abrams era as Trek's answer to Joel Schumacher's Batman.

That's never going to happen. The Schumacher Batmans we're lambasted as horrible even they were made. Quite the opposite has happened with Abrams Trek.

I have noticed that you do seem to hold Nolan in high esteem, which I agree with, he is a talented filmmaker. But saying that his Batman films are the intelligent ones and saying that Abrams films are more akin to Schumacher is laughable. Nolan's Batmans, while well made and executed, have just the same sort of intelligence problems and plot holes that you seems to bash Abrams for. That's not to say that it bothers me, but I cannot figure out how one can sit there and criticize one and praise the other. Nor can I see how you could watch any of the Schumacher Batmans and think that he could compare the the look of style of the Abrams shows. IMHO Abrams is the much more talented filmmaker, and it shows.

 

[trevanian]

I found the Schumacher batflicks to be embarrassing in storytelling and visually, but not nearly as much as the Abrams with the lens flares and such. Yet for all his faults, Schumacher somehow made FALLING DOWN, which is probably among the top 5 films of the 90s for me, so it isn't just him. Also, if the first Schumacher was so reviled at the time, why was he retained for the real disaster that followed?

Honestly, I don't find the Burton batfilms much better (which puts it in the Abrams category, where others rave and I disagree heartily), though the second one had some moments. I don't find much of Burton's to be all that enjoyable, though I'm sure he has won his ticket to heaven with ED WOOD, which is just wonderful beyond belief.

The Nolans just feel right to me ... except for Katie Holmes, that is.

Of course, the thing about all three of the franchise restarts is that I am a major devotee of Bond and Trek, whereas BATMAN is just something I go see. Perhaps that is why I have been utterly appalled by two of the three Bondfilms (and only fitfully impressed with the middle one) and both Abramspics, while I've been fine (or more than fine) with all the Nolan Batfilms, with BEGINS prid near perfect, TDK very very good and TDKR good with signs of acid rain.

I think he works at a level that is well above these other guys, but maybe I'll be proved wrong in a couple of years. If as rumored Nolan actually does agree to do the next Bond, it will be the ultimate pushme/pullyou for me, as I am quite impressed with nearly all of his work, yet am convinced that there is no way I will see another Bond film until the ugly guy passing as 007 gets put out to pasture and they actually start making the films about Bond instead of about another orphan with neuroses (Bond was an orphan but the neurosis seem clearly linked to the BatRestart.)